I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.
I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.
Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.
I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.
Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.
Add: I have the draft ready to post so I will await further instructions from either of you. Since he has now seen this comment he should be ready to act too, or perhaps ready not to act. He raises the quibble that, since everything I do is geared toward the one goal of helping truth go forward in the world, therefore everything I do can be regarded as proselytizing (that being the logical conclusion of his words). I've seen that charge before, which is why I try to preclude it by (1) insisting on definition, (2) applying it equally (such as to his "attempting to convert" you or me "from one" "opinion to another"), and (3) defining what kinds of human interactions are indeed acceptable as mutual pursuit of truth. His continuing to have difficulty to see the equivalence is what's holding him back. IMHO. But I'm confident we'll get to discuss it again sometime. For now the draft awaits.
I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.
I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.
Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.
I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.
Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.